,M,9rNRLF 


B    3   502   oit 


■  Iff  MflJ&j 


HINCMAR:  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 

OF  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  THE  ORGAN- 

IZATION   OF   THE   CHURCH    IN 

THE  NINTH  CENTURY 


By 
GUY   CARLETON    LEE 

Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md. 


A  Dissertation  Presented  to  the  Board  of  University  Studies  of 

the  Johns  Hopkins  University   for   the  Degree 

of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


[Reprinted  from  Vol.  VIII.,  of  the  Papers  of  the  American  Society  of  Church 

History.] 


trbe  "ftnfcfeerbocfter  press 
t807 


HINCMAR:  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 
OF  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  THE  ORGANIZA- 
TION OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  NINTH  CEN- 
TURY. 


2  2(> 


HINCMAR:  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY 
OF  THE  REVOLUTION  IN  THE  ORGANIZA- 
TION OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  NINTH  CEN- 
TURY.1 

By  GUY  CARLETON  LEE, 
Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md. 

In  a  consideration  of  the  ninth  century  we  realize  that  the 
Frankish  world  was  bound  to  the  old  Roman  world  by  more 
potent  ties  than  those  of  memory.  As  we  study  the  so- 
called  superficial  continuations  of  Roman  institutions  we 
discover  that  they  are  not  dead  and  worthless  relics,  but 
living  things.  They  grow  even  as  we  examine  them.  They 
strike  deep  roots  into  the  very  heart  of  Frankish  institu- 
tions. 

In  the  Frankish  nation  there  was  a  force  peculiarly 
Teutonic.  This  wrought  upon  and  changed  the  very  nature 
of  the  Roman  survivals.  So  powerful  was  the  detrusion, 
that  tribes  and  peoples,  crushed  upon  each  other,  were 
fused  and  melted  together  by  the  very  pressure  of  their 
impact.  Localism  was  eliminated  by  the  same  power  that 
forced  extraneous  elements  into  homogeneity  with  the  Teu- 
tonic mass. 

From  this  conflict  of  forces  came  a  new  nation,  animated 
by  a  new  spirit,  an  entirely  new  spirit  through  which  the 
world  was  to  be  regenerated — the  free  spirit  which  reposes 
on  itself — the  absolute  self-determination  of  subjectivity. 
To  this  self-involved  subjectivity,  the  corresponding  objec- 

1  This  monograph  is  a  condensation  of  a  somewhat  larger  work  on  the  same 
subject. 

[Reprinted  from  Vol.  VIII.,  American  Society  of  Church  History.] 


y 


232  Hincmar. 

tivity  stands  opposed  as  absolutely  alien.  The  distinction 
or  antithesis  which  is  evolved  from  these  principles  is  that 
of  church  and  state.1 

The  intellectual  and  political  movements  of  the  ninth 
century  were  to  such  a  degree  the  natural  and  almost  neces- 
sary expression  and  accompaniment  of  the  adolescence  of  a 
great  nation,  that  a  parallel  is  clearly  and  easily  seen  be- 
tween the  intellectual  attitude  of  Paschasius  Radbertus  and 
others  in  connection  with  the  controversies  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  and  that  movement  in  which 
the  so-called  Pseudo-Isidore  is  so  prominently  identified." 

The  metamorphosis  of  a  more  or  less  hazy  and  ambiguous 
belief  in  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  heart  of  a  believer 
into  a  belief  in  a  real  presence  in  the  host  was  a  strict 
counterpart  to  the  transformation  of  the  moral  authority  of 
the  universal  Christian  consciousness  into  a  legal  institution.3 
The  indefinite,  hazy,  and  ineffectual  was  obliged  by  the 
philosophy  of  history  to  become  definite  and  active.  One 
might  have  been  satisfactory  for  mystic  contemplation,  the 
other  was  needed  for  real  life  work. 

Under  the  iron  hand  of  Charles  the  Great  a  Frankish  em- 
pire was  created.  A  sense  of  Teutonic  nationality  found 
expression.  The  church,  too,  grew  in  strength  and  influ- 
ence, yet  this  growth  was  not  normal ;  it  was,  if  we  may 
speak  biologically,  a  metabolism  in  the  molecular  structure, 
a  metensomatosis  by  which  the  very  nature  of  the  church 
was  changed.  The  church  of  Charles  the  Great  was  not  so 
much  a  Roman  as  a  Frankish  church.  It  had  by  katabolism 
become  a  national  church,  co-existent  with  the  conception 
of  a  distinct  political  entity.4 

A  feeling  of  self-sufficiency  in  the  spiritual  as  well  as  in 
the  temporal  affairs  of  the  nation  took  possession  of  the 
Franks. 

1  Cf.  Hegel,   Vorlesungen  iiber  die  Philosophic  der  Geschichte,  p.  354. 
''  Cf.  Bunsen,  C.C.J. ,  God  in  History,  vol.  iii.,  c.  viii. 

3  Cf.  Bunsen,  op.  cit.,  p.  475. 

4  Cf.  Caroli  Magni,  selecta  Capitula  ecclesiastica,  apud  Labbe",  ix.,  tit.  i.,  cap. 
i.,  p.  232.  Ibid.,  c.  iii.,  p.  233.  Headship  of  King  and  Queen.  Concil. 
Aquisgr.,  an.  802.     Labbe,  ix.,  265. 


Hincmar. 


233 


The  position  of  the  Frankish  church  was,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  abnormal.  The  development  of  its  individualism 
had  been  artificially  stimulated.  Its  growth  was,  therefore, 
too  rapid  for  the  needs  of  the  times.  Withdrawal  of  stim- 
ulus, by  the  death  of  Charles  the  Great,  brought  arrestment, 
decay,  and  an  end  of  self-sufficiency. 

The  work  of  Charles  was  by  no  means  without  its  perma- 
nent influence.     Though  the  detail  of  his  administration  did 
not  endure  ;  though  his  empire  was  divided,  yet  the  social 
unity  of  the  Teutonic  peoples  had  been  established.     This      I 
consciousness  of  social  unity  found  its  counterpart  in  a  real-      1 
ization  of  religious  unitv- 

The  ninth  century  has  given  to  ecclesiastical  history  two 
great  names.  Yes,  more — two  personalities,  whose  impor- 
tance in  the  development  of  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the 
Papacy  and  the  centralization  of  church  government  is 
unique  in  their  age.  These  powerful  statesmen  and  learned 
churchmen  were  Nicholas,  Bishop  of  Rome,1  and  Hincmar,  V 
Metropolitan  of  Rheims.2 

Hincmar  was  the  champion  of  the  national  rights  of  the 
Gallican  church.3  He  strove  to  strengthen  and  extend  the 
powerand  authority,  whether  executive,  legislative  or  judicial, 
of  the  metropolitan  sees.  He  maintained  that  it  belonged, 
of  right,  to  the  metropolitans  exclusively,  to  judge,  as  a  court 
of  the  first  instance,  their  suffragan  bishops  ;  to  call  provincial 
synods  and  to  exercise  control  over  the  priests  and  bishops 

1  Epistles  of  Nicholas  I.  Mansi,  Cone,  xv.,  Migne,  Patrologia  S.  Lat.  v., 
cxiv.,  p.  769  et  sea.  ;  v.,  exxix.,  p.  1011,  et  sea.  :  Anastasius  Vita.  Nicol. 

'2  Opera  omnia  juxta  editonem  Sirmondianam,  1852,  2  v.  (Migne,  Patrol. 
S.  Lat.,  v.  125,  126.) 

Duchesne,  A.,  Hist.  Franc.  Script.,  v.  2,  pp.  414,  456,  475,  4S4. 

D'Achery,  J.  L.,  Spicileg.  v.  3,  p.  337. 

Bouquet,  M.,  Rec.  Hist.  Gaules,  v.  9,  p.  254  ;  v.  7,  pp.  292,  518  ;  v.  6.  p.  252  ; 
v.  7,  p.  292,  518  ;  v.  9,  254. 

Noorden,  C.  von,  Hinkmar,  Bonn,  1863. 

Gess,  W.  F.,  Merkwiirdigkeiten  ans  d.  Leben  u.  d.  Schriften  Hincmar,  Got- 
tingen,  1806. 

3  Cf. ,  de  Jure  Metropolitanorutn  ;  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat. ,  v.  125  ;  also  Fleury, 
Histoire  Ecclesiastique,  xi.,  pp.  331,  et  sea. 


234  Hincrnar. 

of  their  dioceses,  without  the  intervention  or  interference, 
except  by  law  provided,  of  the  Pope. 

Such  a  conception  of  the  rights  of  the  metropolitans  led 
Hincmar  to  inevitable  conflict  with  the  Roman  See,  for  its 
Bishop,  Nicholas  I.,  as  the  champion  of  papal  rights  was 
bold,  aggressive  and  strong  with  claims  that  were  bounded  by 
possibilities,  not  by  law.1 

In  considering  the  change  in  the  church  constitution  that 
was  consummated  in  the  ninth  century,  we  are  obliged  to 
study  that  remarkable  set  of  documents  known  as  the 
decretals  of  Pseudo-Isidore.  Their  effect  upon  the  policy  of 
the  Roman  See  was  profound  and  lasting. 

The  changes  produced  by  the  application  of  the  Pseudo- 
Isidore  to  the  organization  of  the  church  may  be  segregated 
thus : 

I.  Those  accentuating  the  papal  headship  over  a  universal 
church.8 

II.  Those  by  which  the  power  of  the  metropolitan  sees 
was  overthrown.3 

III.  Those  by  which  the  suffragan  bishops  were  given 
greater  power  and  placed  in  direct  connection  wtih  Rome.4 

In  discussing  the  change  which  occurred  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury in  the  constitution  of  the  church,  it  is  imperative  that 
we  correctly  conceive  the  status  of  the  Papacy  at  the  period 
in  which  the  change  took  place.  From  such  knowledge  we 
may  deduce  the  extent  of  papal  jurisdiction  over  the  ecclesi- 

1  "  No  branch  of  the  papal  theocratic  monarchy,  whether  in  relation  to  spirit- 
ual matters  or  not,  could  unfold  itself  at  any  later  period,  which  had  not  been 
already  contained  in  the  idea  of  the  papacy  as  apprehended  by  Nicholas." 
Neander,  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and  Church.  Eng.  Trans.,  iii.,  361 
Cf;  Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  Bk.  5,  c.  4  ;  Plank,  Geschichte  des  Pabst- 
thums  von  der  Mitte  des  neunten  yahrhunderis,  an,  1,  35-147. 

8  Consequent  on  II  and  III  post.  Cf.,  Capitula  Hadriani,  lxxii  ;  Labbe, 
viii.,  606. 

3  Agobard,  De  privilegio  el  jure  sacerdotii,  c.  1  ;  Agobard,  De  dispensa- 
tion ecclesiasticarum  rerum,  c.  xv.,  Pii  I,  Ep.  I  ;    Cf.    Zephyrini.   Ep    I 

*  Urbani  I,  Ep.  §  4  ;  Pontiani,  Ep.  1. 


Hincmar.  235 

astics  of  the  Western  world  with  which  we  are  primarily  con- 
cerned. In  a  consideration  of  the  papal  states  four  questions 
immediately  arise : 

I.  The  claim  of  the  Roman  See  to  have  been  established 
by  St.  Peter. 

II.  The  assertion  that  the  Roman  bishops  are  the  lineal 
successors  of  St.  Peter. 

III.  The  unbroken  sequence  of  the  apostolic  succession. 

IV.  The  supremacy  of  the  Roman  See. 

With  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  three  first  questions  we  are 
not  here  concerned.  They  have  furnished  the  basis  of  argu- 
ments that  are  not  yet  closed.  Yet  these  three  questions  are 
of  vital  importance  to  the  examination  of  our  subject,  be- 
cause, whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  decision  regarding  their 
truth  or  falsity,  they  were  in  the  ninth  century  believed 
throughout  Western  Christendom.  They  were  part  of  the 
fundamentals  of  the  Catholic  faith.  As  such  they  formed  a 
foundation  for  the  aggrandizement  of  the  Roman  See,  and 
with  this  our  enquiry  is  directly  concerned. 

In  considering  the  fourth,  and  to  us  the  most  important, 
question,  that  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  See  .  .  . 
we  may  conclude  that  the  admitted  supremacy  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  was  not  existent  in  earliest  times,  and  that  it  was 
the  result  of  a  gradual  though  uneven  development. 

In  the  history  of  this  development,  as  well  as  in  the 
history  of  the  Frankish  church,  the  personality  of  Boniface1 
has  left  an  indelible  impress.  To  Boniface  the  Papacy  owes 
a  debt  of  gratitude,  for  he  was  the  servant  of  Rome  and  the 
faithful  extender  of  its  propaganda.  By  direct  papal  com- 
mission as  vicar  apostolic,  by  the  pallium  and  by  his  oath 
upon  the  tomb  of  the  apostles  he  was  bound  to  the  Petrine 
See.1 

He  reorganized  the  Austrasian  and  Neustrian  churches. 

'Cook,  Life  of  Boniface,  Lond. ,  1883;  Hope,  Boniface,  Lond.,  1872; 
Fischer,  C,  Bonifacius,  Leipzig,  1881  ;  Maclear,  Apostles  of  Western 
Europe,  Lond.,  1869  ;  Pfahler,  G. ,  Bonifacius  und  seine  Zeit,  Heilbronn, 
1880  ;  Werner,  A.,  Bonifacius  d.  Apostel d.  Deutschen,  Leipzig,   1875. 

2  Bonif.  Ep.  ed.  Serarii,  118. 


236  Hincmar. 

Under  his  direction  a  stream  of  ecclesiastical  legislation 
issued  from  the  Frankish  synods.  To  him  is  to  be  ascribed 
the  reorganization  of  the  metropolitan  sees  and  the  founda- 
tion of  an  effective  system  by  which  the  national  indepen- 
dence was  conserved  at  the  same  time  that  the  Roman 
power  was  extended  and  strengthened.' 

In  the  reorganization  of  the  Frankish  church  by  Boniface, 
metropolitans  were  placed  under  the  immediate  authority 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  From  him  as  a  symbol  of  their 
authority  they  were  to  receive  the  pallium.  The  suffragan 
bishops  were  compelled  to  submit  to  their  metropolitans. 
It  was  to  be  the  special  duty  of  the  metropolitans  to  watch 
over  the  morality  of  the  bishops  in  their  charge.  All  cases 
of  great  importance  or  difficulty  were  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Pope,  but  not  by  any  complainant  or  in  the  first  instance. 
All  such  cases  were  to  go  to  Rome  through  regular  chan- 
nels, that  is,  through  the  metropolitans  who  stood  between 
the  Pope  and  the  Bishops.11  This  is  not  the  appeal  of  the 
Bishop  but  that  of  the  Metropolitan.  It  was  the  principle 
that  had  been  designed  for  the  Patriarchates. 

The  Bonifacian  Constitutions  as  embodied  in  the  Canons 
of  the  first  German  Council,3  gave  to  the  metropolitans,  of 
whom,  let  us  remember,  Boniface  was  one,  that  which  they 
had  up  to  this  time  seemed  to  lack,  that  is,  a  positive  legal 
authority. 

1  Boniface,  Epistolir  et  Sermones,  Migne,  Patrol.,  T.,  89,  pp.  593-801  ; 
Jaffe,  Monnmenta  Moguntina ;  Opera  quce  omnia  extant  omnia,  ed.  J.  A. 
Giles,  1844,  2  v-  See  also,  Mai,  A.,  Auctor  classic,  v.  7  ;  Bouquet,  M.,  Rec. 
Hist.  Gaules,  v.  5  ;  D'Achery,  J.  L.  Spicilegium,  v.  1  ;  Mencke,  J.  B., 
Script,  rerum  German,  v.  i.  ;  Jaffe,  P.,  Biblioth.  rerum  German.,  v.  3  ; 
Pertz,  Mon.  Ger.  Script.,  v.  ii.  ;  Hefele,  Conciliengeschickte,  iii.,  458.  For 
Vita,  see  Migne,  Patrol.,  T.  89,  p.  603,  and  Willibald,  Pertz,  ii.,  33.  See 
also  note  2,  p.  235. 

2  Boniface  thus  expresses  himself  :  "Sic  emin  ni  fallor,  omnes  Episcopi 
debent  Metropolitano,  et  ipse  Romano  Tontinci,  si  quid  de  corrigendis  populis 
apud  eos  impossibile  est,  notum  facere  ;  et  sic  alieni  fierit  a  sanguine  animarum 
perditarum."     Cf.  Gieseler,  ii.,  27,  n.  7. 

3  Mansi,  xii.,  365.  I  wish  to  note  that  I  cite  to  Mansi  or  Labbe  as  they 
are  nearest  to  my  hand.  In  case  of  difference  between  their  statements  cita- 
tion will  be  made  to  both  and  variation  noted. 


Hincmar.  237 

This  regular  system  of  ecclesiastical  gradation  by  which 
priest  depended  upon  bishop,  bishop  upon  metropolitan,  and 
metropolitan  upon  Pope  was  from  the  beginning  distaste- 
ful to  the  bishops.  The  fact  that  the  metropolitan  did  not 
differ  in  spiritual  function  from  the  bishop,  his  subordinate, 
as  the  bishop  did  from  the  priest,  his  subordinate,  tended  to 
weaken  the  position  of  the  metropolitan.  Many  of  the 
bishops  resented  the  intervention  of  the  metropolitan  in  the 
hierarchical  scale.  They  resisted  his  authority  as  an  in- 
fringement upon  their  vested  rights.  The  license  to  which 
they  had  become  accustomed  had  brought  them  to  a  condi- 
tion in  which  direct  control  by  one  who  could  not  fail  to 
know  of  breaches  of  discipline  opened  large  possibilities  of 
trouble  and  punishment.  But  a  large  number  of  bishops 
against  whom  a  charge  of  immorality  and  oppression  could 
not  be  brought  were  disposed  to  look  upon  the  plan  as  an 
innovation.  It  was  regarded  as  having  no  precedent,  as  an 
attack  upon  time-honored  custom  that  had  almost  acquired 
a  divine  sanction. 

As  this  feeling  of  antagonism  gathered  force  the  bishops 
became  ready  to  take  almost  any  means  to  rid  themselves  of 
the  metropolitan  control.  The  surest  method  was  to  appeal 
directly  to  the  Pope,  and  thus  turn  the  metropolitan  out  of 
his  position  in  the  carefully  graded  hierarchy.  This  possi- 
bility was  the  radical  defect  in  the  plan  of  Boniface.  This 
very  defect  was  to  give  to  the  Petrine  See  an  authority  un- 
dreamed of  by  Boniface  or  Gregory. 

For  a  time,  however,  the  plan  of  Boniface  succeeded,  for 
the  majority  of  the  clergy  were  brought  to  accept  it.  This 
success  was  largely  due  to  the  development  of  the  spirit  of 
nationality.  The  office  of  metropolitan  was  closely  allied  to 
the  national  movement.  The  metropolitan,  in  a  certain 
sense,  stood  for  national  unity.  He  was  a  prince  of  the 
church,  and  the  church  was  divided  according  to  race  affilia- 
tions. A  certain  patriotism  sprang  up,  which  in  ecclesias- 
tical affairs  centred  in  the  primate,  just  as  in  political  affairs 
it  centred  in  the  king. 


238  Hincm, 

As  the  church  gained  wealth  and  power  it  lost  singleness 
of  purpose.  It  departed  from  that  standard  of  righteousness 
set  by  the  early  fathers  for  the  church  universal.  Its  greed 
for  temporalities  cast  it  from  the  high  position  which  was  its 
by  right,  the  position  of  spiritual  monitor  of  the  world.  The 
Popes  became  the  vassals  of  emperors.1 

With  this  subordination  of  the  Papacy  came  a  transfer  of 
its  claims  to  supreme  appellate  jurisdiction.  Though  no 
formal  act  declared  this  shifting  of  power,  it  nevertheless 
happened  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  lost  such  right  as  he 
had,  either  de  facto  or  de  jure,  to  final  decision  in  ecclesias- 
tical affairs.  Charles  the  Great  was  the  virtual  head  of  the 
Western  church  and  the  actual  head  of  the  Frankish  church. 
The  Pope  became  the  adviser  and  not  the  judge  of  the 
Gallican  clergy.4  With  the  successors  of  Charles  the  Great 
the  dynasty  of  the  Carlings  began  its  downward  course. 
Louis  the  Mild  from  the  position  of  the  reformer  of  the 
clergy3  became  the  slave  of  the  hierarchy.  The  church,  un- 
der the  impetus  obtained  from  Charles,  threatened  to  over- 
whelm the  state  and  to  supplant  lay  officials  with  ecclesiastics  ; 
to  replace  the  aristocracy  of  birth  with  an  aristocracy  of  the 
tonsure.  The  bishops,  and  especially  the  metropolitan 
bishops,  strove  to  become  masters  of  France.  In  the  end 
their  ambition  led  to  their  defeat  and  humiliation. 

The  disorders  in  the  Frankish  Empire4  furnished  the  Pope 
an  opportunity  to  advance  the  power  of  the  Roman   See, 

1  Cf.  Astronomius,c.  xxxvii.  Einhard,  p.  390.  Lives  of  Leo  III.,  Stephen 
IV.,  Paschal  I.,  Eugenius  II.,  Gregory  IV.,  Benedict  III.,  in  Anastasius. 

s  Appeals  lay  through  the  Metropolitan  not  to  the  Pope  but  to  the  Emperor. 
Capit.  Francoford,  a.d.  794,  c.  4.  "  Etsi  aliquid,  quod  Episcopus  metropoli- 
tanus  non  possit  corrigere  me  pacifare,  tunc  tandem  veneant  accustores  cum 
accusato  cum  litteris  metropolitani,  ut  sciamus  venitatem  rei."  Cf.  Gieseler,  op. 
cit.  ii.,  pp.  40,  46.  The  Emperor  presided  at  Councils.  Canons  were  issued  in 
his  name. 

3  See  Thegan,  Vit.  Lud.  PH.,  cc.  xiii.,  xix.  ;  ap.  Pertz,  v.  ii.,  pp.  594, 
595.  ;  Astron.  Vit.  Lud.  PH.,  ibid.  Cf.  Luden.  Gesch.  d.  Deutsck.,  vol.  v.,  p. 
581. 

*  Annates  Bertinani,  ad  an.,  830-833.  Ap.  Pertz.,  i.,  p.  423  et  sea.  ;  The- 
gan., Vit.  Lud.  PH.,  ap.  Pertz,  v.  ii.,  pp.  597,  598  ;  Anom.,  ibid,  pp.  631-fiT:. 
Nithard,  ibid.,  p.  652. 


Hincmar. 


239 


and  to  lower  the  authority  of  the  national  church.  For  the 
strife  between  the  warring  factions  could  not  be  controlled 
by  Louis,  and  a  demand  arose  for  a  supreme  arbiter,  one  re- 
moved or  thought  to  be  removed  from  the  effect  of  local  or 
factionary  influences.  No  one  but  the  Pope  could  be  consid- 
ered. Under  the  opportunity  presented  by  necessity  his 
character  of  intermediary  and  advisor  changed,  slowly  but 
not  the  less  surely,  to  that  of  supreme  judge  in  matters  eccle- 
siastical. 

The  Pope  appeared  in  France  '  not  only  to  act  as  peace- 
maker but  kingmaker.  At  the  Field  of  Lies  his  word  over- 
threw an  emperor,  for  at  his  instigation  the  followers  of 
Lewis  deserted  him  and  fled  to  his  rebellious  sons  and  their 
allied  clergy.3 

But  the  Pope  as  yet  hesitated  to  take  the  full  advantage 
of  his  new  position.  He  was  unwilling  to  depose  the  em- 
peror whom  he  had  defeated.  At  his  hesitancy  the  disloyal 
ecclesiastics,  says  Pascharius  Radbertus,  showed  him  certain 
documents  founded  on  the  authority  and  given  in  the  hand 
of  his  predecessors,  by  which  he  was  completely  assured  of 
his  ability  to  depose  the  emperor.3 

Whether  through  the  influence  of  the  documents  or  for 
reasons  of  policy,  Gregory  declared  the  emperor  deposed.4 
Lewis  was  imprisoned.6  He  was  compelled  to  do  public 
penance  for  "  imaginary  crimes."  6  He  was  considered  by 
his  enemies  as  an  ex-king. 

1  Nithard,  Caroli  M.  Nepotis  Historic,  L.  i.,  §  iv.  ;  Bouquet,  op.  cii.,  vi., 
p.  69;  Thegan,  Vit.  Lud.  Pii,  xvi.,  xvii.  ;  Bouquet,  vii.,  pp.  593-594. 

2  Thegan,  De  Gest.  Lud.  Pii.  Imp.,  833,  §  xlii.  ;  Bouquet,  op.  cit.,  vi.,  p. 
81,  et  seq.;  Anna/.  Bertin.  ad.  an.  833. 

3  It  has  been  thought  that  the  presentation  of  these  documents  mentioned  by 
Radbertus,  Vit.  Walce,  ii.  16,  was  the  first  appearance  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore. 
This  is  however  pure  conjecture.  Cf.  Greenwood,  Cathedra  Petri,  iii.,p.  151. 
Justification  of  attitude  of  bishops,  Astron.  383,  ed.  Giuzot.     Mansi,  xiv.,  p. 

403- 

4  Fleury,  Histoire  Ecclesiastique,  48,  40.  Agobard,  Libel,  ap.  Mansi, 
xiv.,  p.  652. 

5  Thegan,  297.     Cf  Ep.  Caroli,  ad.  Nich.  ap.,  ad  an.  867,  ap.   Mansi,  xv. 

*  Louis  made  several  public  penances.  These  had  an  important  effect.  By 
them  he  humiliated  in  his  own  person  the  monarchical  authority,  and  elevated 


240  Hincmar. 

The  emperor  escaped.1  His  friends  rallied  to  his  support.3 
He  regained  his  empire.3  He  punished  the  rebels.4  Despite 
his  successes  Lewis  did  not  venture  to  set  aside  the  authority 
of  the  church,  or  to  seriously  question  the  competency  of 
the  acts  by  which  he  had  been  deposed.  On  the  contrary, 
he  sought  absolution  from  the  censure  of  the  church,  and 
acknowledged  the  legality  of  the  process  by  which  he  had 
been  deprived  of  the  empire* which  he  had  so  hardly  re- 
gained. This  course  had  the  inevitable  result  of  elevating 
the  Church  above  the  State  ;  of  fostering  the  imperial 
spirit  which  now  animated  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Ebbo,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,5  had  been  a  leading  spirit 
in  the  rebellion  against  Lewis.  To  Ebbo  the  emperor  had 
been  given  in  charge  at  his  deposition.  When  Lewis  was 
liberated  Ebbo  fled,8  with  much  of  the  treasure  belonging  to 
his  Archbishopric,  to  the  Normans.7  He  was  captured.8 
Lewis  charged  him  with  his  crimes. 

Ebbo  requested  to  be  tried  in  the  absence  of  the  emperor, 
and  his  request  was  granted.9  He  chose  as  his  judges  those 
bishops  to  whom  he  had  confessed  his  fault.  He  was  not  to 
appeal  from  their  decision.10  They  declared  against  him  and 
advised  his  deposition.     Another  council  was  held  at  Thion- 

that  of  the  church  before  which  he  abased  himself;  he  gave  incentive  to  dispute 
the  commands  of  a  power  which  accused  itself.  He  published  his  humiliation 
to  the  world.  See  Capit.  of  Attigny,  "  Confitemur  nos  in  pluribus  locis  .  .  . 
tarn  in  vita  quam  in  doctrina  et  ministerio  neglegentes  exstitisse." 

1  Ann  Bertin.  ad  an.  834. 

8  Astron.,  394. 

3  Thegan.,  p.  396.     Mansi,  xiv.,  658. 

4  Ann.  Bertin.  ad  an.  834. 

6  Ebbo,  775-851.  A pologeiicum .  D'Achery,  J.  L.,  Spicilegium,  iii.,  p.  335. 
Confessio ;  Apologeticum,  Narratio  depositionis,  Pamaticce ;  apud  Migne, 
Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  v.  116,  p.  9.  See  also  Bouquet,  vii.,  277.  Duchesne,  ii., 
34.     Migne,  Ibid.,  p.  17. 

6  For  his  subsequent  career  see  Flodoard,  op.  cit.,  ii.,  20. 

1  Mansi,  xv.,  793. 

8  Flodoard,  Bouquet,  vi.,  214  C.  D. 

'  In  accordance  with  the  African  Synod  of  407  A.D. 

10  African  Synod  407  A.D. 


Hincmar. 


241 


ville,1  and  this  upon  Ebbo's  written  confession  and  abandon- 
ment of  his  see2  deposed  him.3 

Ebbo  was  favored  by  the  successor  of  Lewis,  Lothair.4 
In  840,  at  a  pseudo-synod  5  called  by  Lothair  to  Ingelheim, 
a  decree  was  published  8  which  purported  to  restore  Ebbo.7 
Lothair  having  temporarily  conquered  Rheims,  Ebbo  was 
reinstated.8  He  was  soon  ejected,  for  Charles  the  Bald  re- 
gained the  city.  While  de  facto  Archbishop — 840-841 — 
Ebbo  ordained  Wulfadus  and  certain  other  persons  as 
clerks.  This  seemingly  unimportant  though  illegal  act  was 
destined  to  have  serious  consequences. 

In  845  Hincmar  had  become  the  most  powerful  ecclesias-     'i 
tic  in  France.9  He  was  one  of  the  palace  clergy  10  and  the  con- 
fidential adviser  of  Charles  the  Bald.     He  was  appointed  by 
Charles  to  the  archbishopric  of  Rheims,11  and  was  consecrated 

1  Thegan,  Bouquet,  vii.,  85A. 

2  Hincmar,  de  Freed.,  Ed.  Sirmondi ;  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  127  ;  Mansi, 
xv.,  796.     Annal.  Bertin.  ad  an.  834  ;   Flodoard,  ap.  Bouquet,  vi.,  215. 

3  Mansi,  xv.,  796;   Bouquet,  vi.,  251   et  seq. 

4  Lothair,  795-855.  Capitularia,  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  97,  p.  371. 
Constitution's,  Bouquet,  vi.,  265,  405.  Diplomata,  ibid.,  viii.,  365.  Epistolce 
ad  Leonem  IV.  Papain,  ibid.,  vii.,  pp.  307-318,  565.  Agobard,  Chartula 
ad  Lotharium  Augustum,  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  104,  p.  319.    Excerpta  ex 

Vit.  Sane,  de  Lothario,  Imp.     Bouquet,  vii.,  323. 

5  No  legal  synod  was  ever  held  to  restore  Ebbo,  neither  was  the  case  ever 
considered  during  his  lifetime.  Hincmar,  Ep.  ad  Nichol.  Papain,  Mansi,  xv., 
777  ;   Migne,  Patrol   S.  Lat.,  T.,  126;  Flodoard,  iii.,  2. 

6  Edict  for  restoration  of  Ebbo  published  by  Lothair  at  Ingelheim,  June  24, 
840.      Mansi,  xiv. ,  773  ;  cf.  Flodoard,  iii.,  20. 

7  Bouquet,  vi.,  254  ;  vii.,  281  ;  D'Achery,  Spieileg.,  vii.,  175.  Ebbo  was  never 
legally  restored  to  the  episcopate.  For  his  appeal  see  Hincmar,  de  Prced.,  c.  36, 
p    326. 

8  On  his  return  to  Rheims,  Ebbo  caused  Lothair's  decree  to  be  read  publicly 
in  the  church,  and  also  made  it  known  to  bishops  and  other  important  persons. 
He  also  read  and  promulgated  a  confession  of  his  guilt.  See  Hincmar,  de 
Prced. 

9  For  early  life  of  Hincmar  see  Flodoard,  iii.,  1. 

10  Migne,  Encycl.  The"ol.  Discipline,  i.  Cf.  iii.,  1.  Cf.  Hincmar,  Migne, 
Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  126,  c.  99-101,  for  a  definition  of  the  position  of  the  palace 
clergy. 

11  Fleury,  op.  cit.,  47  :  28  ;  Flodoard,  iii.,  10. 

16 


242  Hincmar. 

May  3,  845. '  Pope  Leo,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Emperor 
Lothair,'  gave  Hincmar  the  great  honor  of  the  extraor- 
dinary pallium.3  If  Ebbo  was  lawfully  deposed,  Hincmar 
was  in  an  impregnable  position  ;  if  not,  it  was  hardly  tenable. 
This  question  was  soon  to  arise. 

At  the  Treaty  of  Verdun  *  the  progress  of  civil  and  ec- 
clesiastical imperialism  received  a  check.  By  the  division 
of  the  Empire  at  Verdun,  Charles  the  Bald  and  Louis  the 
German  found  themselves  at  the  heads  of  kingdoms  in 
which  a  certain  amount  of  homogeneity  existed.  The  at- 
tenuated empire  of  Lothair  was  neither  homogeneous  nor 
powerful. 

Hincmar  felt  himself  to  be  at  the  head  of  a  national 
church,  with  the  duty  of  maintaining  the  dignity  and  power 
of  his  office.  Although  the  national  church  was  more  of  a 
reality  than  the  nation  in  its  civil  aspect,  although  the 
civil  unity  was  sustained  by  the  ecclesiastical  unity,  and 
through  the  aid  of  the  spiritual  organization  the  king  con- 
trolled the  minds  of  his  lay  vassals,  yet  the  national 
church  was  not  stable ;  it  had  inherent  weakness.  It  was 
doomed  to  overthrow. 

It  was  Hincmar's  fate  to  lead  a  lost  cause.  The  church 
had  become  an  imperial,  a  universal  power,  from  its  very 
nature  intolerant  of  national  distinctions,  and  it  rejected  the 
constitution  of  Boniface.  A  metropolitan,  in  the  middle  of 
the  ninth  century,  attempting  to  carry  out  the  traditional 
duties  of  his  office,  was,  from  the  first,  destined  to  meet  de- 
feat. The  decretals  of  Pseudo-Isidore  were  already  in  circu- 
lation, even  if  they  had  not  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
highest  authority  of  the  church. 

1  Exc.  ex  Hermanni  Contracti  Chron.  ad  an.  844  ;  Bouquet,  vii.,  232  ;  Ex 
brevi  Chronico  Remensi  ap.,  Labbe,  i.,  359  ;  Bouquet,  vii.,  271. 

1  Epis.  Lotharii  ad  Leonem  IV  Papam;  Prousu  Pallii,etc,  Bouquet,  vii.,  565. 

3  Pallium  quotidiamum,  Flodoard,  iii.,  10. 

4 Annul.  Berlin.,  ad  an.  843.  Cf.  Rerum  Gallicarum  et  Francicarum 
Scriplores,  vii. 

6  Charles  I.  (le  chauve),  King  of  France,  823-877.  Capitularia  ;  Epistola  ; 
Bouquet,  vii.,  552,  560,  598.  Diplomata,  ibid.,  vi.  Ex  Epistola  de  Ebbonis 
archiepiscopi  Remensis  deposition*, — apud  Bouquet,  vi.,  254. 


Hincmar.  243 

Hincmar,  learning  of  the  ordinations  made  by  Ebbo  while 
acting  as  bishop  under  the  Ingelheim  edict,  suspended 
Wulfadus  and  the  clerks.1  They  appealed 2  to  a  synod ' 
held  at  Soissons  in  853.* 

The  clerks  had  several  available  lines  of  defense.  They 
could  not  only  set  forth  their  good  faith  in  receiving  orders, 
but  could  advance  Ebbo's  authority  to  give  them,  basing 
their  authority  on  the  Ingelheim  pseudo-synod  and  the 
edict  of  Lothair  reinstating  Ebbo.  Yet  these  defenses  were 
not  advanced.  They  based  their  case  upon  what  seems  to 
have  been  the  Pseudo-Isidore.  They  claimed  that  the  de- 
position of  Ebbo  was  illegal,  because  before  trial  Ebbo  had 
not  been  restored  to  the  full  enjoyment  of  his  rights  and 
privileges/  This  was  the  "  exceptio  spolii  " 6  of  the  Pseudo- 
Isidore.  Further,  that  the  council  deposing  Ebbo  was  illegal 
because  papal  legates  were  not  present.7  These  two  prin- 
ciples are  new.  They  do  not  belong  to  the  body  of  the 
Canon  Law  as  then  received  and  accepted.  They  are 
characteristic  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore.  It  is  indeed  at  this 
moment  when  the  change  in  the  church  constitution  takes 
tangible  form. 

The  Synod  of  Soissons,  853/  declared  the  deposition  of 

1  Hincmar  did  not  depose  the  clerks.  It  was  the  action  of  the  synod.  Mansi, 
xiv. ,  985.     Annal.  Bertin.,  ad  an.  853. 

2  Bouquet,  vii.,  277  et  seq.     Mansi,  xiv.,  987  et  seq. 

3  Hincmar,  Epis.,  iii.  ;   Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lai.,  T.  126. 

4  Mansi,  xiv.,  985;  Migne,  Encycl.  Thiol.,  xiv.,  894  ;  Bouquet,  vii.,  277, 
et  seq. 

6  See  note  on  exceptio  spolii,  post. 

6  Cf.  Ep.  ii.  of  Zephyrinus. 

7  See  page  244  and  note. 

8  For  transactions  of  this  synod  and  their  consequences,  in  regard  to  Wulfa- 
dus et  al,  see  Epistles  of  Hinc?nar  to  Popes  Nicholas  and  Benedict,  Migne, 
Patrol.  S.  Lai.,  T.  126.  Cf.  Flodoard,  iii.,  Mansi,  xiv.,  977,  et  seq.  See  also 
Du  Pin  whose  realistic  but  possibly  prejudiced  account  is  worth  reading  (Du 
Pin,  H.  £.,  IX.  Cent.  ch.  4).  The  decision  of  the  Synod,  after  the  report  of 
the  Council  of  Thionville  and  an  account  of  the  action  of  Sergius  in  the  matter 
had  been  read,  was,  that  Ebbo  had  not  been  properly  restored  and  had  no 
right  to  ordain.  This  was  additional  support  to  the  position  of  Hincmar.  It 
is  surprising  that  no  mention  was  made  at  Soissons  of  the  acts  of  the  Council  of 
Bourges,  which  would  have  been  so  much  to  the  point. 


244  Hincmar. 

Ebbo  canonical  and  his  acts  while  officiating  as  bishop  after 
the  Ingelheim  edict  illegal.  It  ruled  that  Ebbo  was  no 
longer  a  bishop  when  he  returned  to  Rheims,  and  he  could 
not  confer  the  grace  of  orders  as  he  did  not  himself  possess 
them. 

The  clerks  then  produced  a  document  purporting  to  be 
the  signed  opinion  of  several  bishops  that  Ebbo's  restitution 
was  canonical.1  Unfortunately  for  the  clerks  six  of  the  nine 
bishops  whose  names  were  appended  to  the  declaration 
were  present  at  the  synod  of  Soissons.  They  at  once  de- 
clared both  document  and  signatures  to  be  forgeries.  The 
case  of  the  clerks  was  ruined.  They  were  not  only  deposed 
but  excommunicated.  The  clerks  appealed  to  Rome. 
Hincmar  sought  the  papal  confirmation  of  the  synodical 
decrees.  Leo  delayed  approval,  and  replied  to  the  request 
of  Hincmar  that  he  hesitated  to  confirm  the  decrees  for 
several  important  reasons,2  which  may  be  briefly  stated  thus  : 

I.  That  Papal  legates  had  not  been  presented  at  Soissons. 

II.  That  the  report  of  the  council  had  not  been  properly 
sent  to  Rome. 

III.  That  the  imperial  order  for  the  council  had  not  been 
sent  to  Rome  with  the  papers  of  the  synod. 

IV.  That  the  clerks  had  appealed  to  the  Holy  See.3 

In  these  illogical  reasons,  which  are  not  based  upon  prece- 
dent, there  is  at  least  an  intimation  of  a  new  order  of  things. 
A  mere  cursory  examination  demonstrates  the  fallacy  of  the 
reasoning  which  appears  to  have  prompted  them.  For  ex- 
ample :  what  had  an  imperial  order  to  do  with  a  council 
held  under  the  authority  of  Charles  the  Bald  ?  Why  should 
papal  legates  have  been  required  at  the  council?  Such  le- 
gates were  not  usually  present,  nor  is  there  a  precedent  for 
their  attendance  being  required  at  Soissons.  Again,  inferior 
clergy  had  never  possessed  the  right  of  appeal  to  Rome ;  by 
what  right  did  they  now  appeal? 

1  This  paper  had  already  been  published  by  Ebbo  in  his  Apology.  Mansi, 
xvi.,  775  ;  l'lodoard,  ii.,  26;  D'Achery,  vii.;  Bouquet,  vii.,  281. 

2  Mansi,  xv. ,  746. 

3  For  Epistles  and  Decretals  of  Leo,  see  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  125,  129. 


Hincmar.  245 

The  claims  of  the  Pope  plainly  indicate  a  new  force  at 
work  in  the  church  organization.  The  reasons  given  by  the 
Pope  seem  intended  to  serve  a  double  purpose  :  first,  to 
conceal  the  real  reason  for  refusal,  the  opposition  of  the 
Emperor  Lothair,1  and,  second,  to  advance  the  claims  of  the 
See  of  Rome  to  supremacy  over  all  ecclesiastical  matters.3 

Leo  died  without  ratifying  the  decrees  of  the  Soissons 
Synod  of  853.  The  new  Pope,  Benedict  III.,3  not  only  con- 
firmed them  *  but  commended  the  course  taken  by  Hincmar 
as  showing  zeal  for  the  welfare  of  the  church.  Not  only 
was  the  validity  of  Hincmar's  title  to  the  office  of  Archbishop 
seemingly  settled  for  all  time,  but  the  Pope  decreed  that  no 
one  canonically  subject  to  the  see  of  Rheims  should  presume 
to  appeal  to  any  other  tribunal,  "  as  is  conformable  to  the 
traditions  of  the  Fathers  and  the  Canons  of  the  church,  al- 
ways excepting  the  rights  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome." 

To  what  traditions  and  canons  did  Benedict  refer,  and 
what  did  he  mean  by  this  clause  ?  Shall  we  conclude,  as 
Nicholas  did  years  after,  that  the  words  signified  that 
Rome  might  at  any  time  interfere  and  reverse  a  judgment 
given  in  the  Archbishopric  of  Rheims,  although  that  judg- 
ment had  been  confirmed  by  herself;  or  did  Benedict  mean 
what  Flodoardus  6  asserts  in  the  words  :  "  That  pontiff  con- 
ferred on  the  same  Hincmar  the  authority  of  the  Apostle 
Peter  and  of  the  Holy  Apostolic  See,  a  privilege  making  it 
so  that  no  subject  of  Rheims  might  with  impunity  have  re- 
course to,  or  subject  himself  to,  any  authority  other  than  his 
own." 

1  Mansi,  xiv.,  746. 

3  The  question  naturally  arises  whether  the  reasons  ascribed  to  Leo  are  based 
on  the  Pseudo-Isidore.  It  seems  more  probable  that  the  true  reason  for  the  re- 
fusal of  Leo  to  approve  the  action  of  the  Synod  of  Soissons  (853)  was  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  Emperor,  and  that  the  reasons  in  text  would  seem  to  have  been  put 
into  Leo's  mouth  by  Nicholas,  and  were  not  advanced  by  Leo. 

3  Benedict  III.,  Pope,  Vita.  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  115.  Notitia  his- 
torica  ;  Epistoltz  ;  Diploma,  ibid.      Supplementum  ad  Diplomata,  ibid.  T.  113. 

4  The  Pope  in  his  confirmation  used  a  phrase  that  afterwards  caused  difficulty 
and  was  used  against  Hincmar  by  Nicholas  I. — "  Si  ita  est  ut  scriptis,"  etc. — 
the  real  meaning  of  which  could  hardly  be  more  than,  "  upon  such  grounds." 
Nicholas,  however,  gave  it  a  strictly  conditional  turn.  b  Flodoard,  iii.,  n. 


246  Hincmar. 

The  meaning  of  Benedict  was  somewhere  between  these 
extreme  views  of  partisans.  It  was  a  condemnation  of 
Ebbo's  pretended  restoration  and  the  appeal  of  the  clerks  to 
Rome  as  well  as  a  confirmation  of  Hincmar's  position  as 
Archbishop  and  Metropolitan,  and  the  Bonifacian  system 
of  appeals. 

Benedict's  successor,  Nicholas  I.,  promptly  approved  his 
action  and  for  himself  confirmed  Hincmar's  privileges. 

The  relations  between  the  new  Pope  and  Hincmar,  though 
they  began  so  pleasantly,  were  destined  to  become  strained. 
The  personalities  of  the  two  men  accentuated  the  claims 
of  their  official  positions.  With  the  pontificate  of  Nicholas 
came  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  power  of  the  Metro- 
politanate.  This  process  is  illustrated  by  a  series  of  con- 
troversies between  Nicholas  and  Hincmar  growing  out  of  a 
series  of  cases  that  may  be  called  leading  cases  in  Catholic 
Canonical  Law. 

The  leading  cases  on  the  subject  of  the  extension  of  the 
jurisdiction  and  supremacy  of  the  Roman  See  at  this  period 
are  those  of  Wulfadus  and  other  clerks,  of  Rothadus  and 
of  Hincmar  of  Laon.  In  these  cases,  and  particularly  in  the 
first  two,  the  matter  of  the  deposition  of  Ebbo,  and  con- 
sequently the  question  of  the  validity  of  Hincmar's  title  to 
the  Archbishopric  of  Rheims  are  the  real  though  hidden 
questions  by  which  the  Pope  wished  to  force  a  conclusion 
favorable  to  the  Roman  See. 

The  case  of  Wulfadus  and  the  other  clerks  ordained  by 
Ebbo  may  for  the  present  be  set  to  one  side  for  the  confir- 
mation of  the  acts  of  the  synod  of  Soissons  by  Benedict,  and 
the  approval  by  Nicholas  temporarily  suspended  proceedings. 

Hincmar  ruled  his  diocese  with  an  iron  hand  and  brooked 
no  opposition.  His  course  was  justified  by  the  needs  of  the 
times  as  long  as  he  followed  the  law  or,  in  the  absence  of  ex- 
press legislation,  did  not  exceed  the  general  authority  of 
his  office.  The  clergy  of  all  grades  needed  reformation. 
The  looseness  of  the  times  affected  the  clerks  as  well  as  the 
laity.  Hincmar  strove  to  correct  the  current  abuses  and  to 
preserve  canonical  order  and  discipline.      His  course  was 


Hincmar.  247 

opposed  by  many  of  his  suffragans,  for  they  accepted  only 
too  gladly  the  dictum  of  Nicholas  that  there  was  but  one 
grade  of  bishops,  and  argued  accordingly  that  the  metro- 
politan was  on  a  parity  with  suffragan  bishops  and  could  not 
dictate  to  them.  The  antagonism  of  the  provincial  bishops 
found  expression  in  the  case  of  Rothadus.1  Rothadus, 
Bishop  of  Soissons,  was  charged  by  Hincmar,  his  metro- 
politan, with  having  unjustly  deposed 3  a  priest  of  his  diocese 
and  refusing  to  restore  him  on  command  of  his  superior 
Hincmar,  with  having  refused  to  remove  the  priest  whom  he 
had  installed  in  the  place  of  him  whom  he  had  deposed. 
This  was  not  all  the  accusation ;  Rothadus  was  further 
charged  with  squandering  the  church  revenues,  pawning  a 
golden  chalice  belonging  to  his  church,  and  selling  vessels 
and  ornaments  of  his  church  without  the  consent  of  either 
the  metropolitan  or  the  bishops  of  the  province  or  even  the 
steward  and  clergy  of  his  own  church.3  It  was  further 
charged  that  Rothadus  had  not  lived  in  a  manner  becoming 
to  a  bishop.4 

Rothadus  had  good  reason  to  suspect  that  the  judgment 


1  Some  authorities  for  the  case  of  Rothadus  :  Ep.  Nicholas  Nos.  28-44,  ap. 
Mansi,  xv.  ;  Ep.  Hincmar,  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  125,  126.  Flodoardus, 
op.  cit.  iii.,  13.  Annales  Bertiniani,  ad  an.  862  et  seq.  Libellus  Rothadus, 
Mansi,  xv.,  681.  Consult  Fleury,  i.,  cc.  21,  27,  36,  37.  Du  Pin.,  H.  £.,IX.  Cent. 
Baxman,  Die  Politik  der  Papste,  ii.,  25  et  sea.  Gfrorer,  Church  History,  iii., 
1001  et  sea.  Natalis  Alexander,  Historia  Ecclesiastica ;  Bingen,  1787,  xii., 
368  et seq.  Neander,  Church  History,  Am.  Ed.,  iii.,  358,  361.  Gieseler,  op.  cit., 
ii.,  109,  127,  Am.  Ed.  Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  bk.  v.,  c.  4.  Greenwood, 
Cathedra  Petri,  iii.,  252-268.  Guizot,  History  of  Civilization  in  France,  Bohn's 
edition,  iii.,  344  ff.  Von  Noorden,  Hinkmar,  Erzbischof  von  Rheims :  Bonn, 
1863.  Langen,  Geschichle  der  romischen  Kirchen  von  Nicholas  bis  Gregor,  vii., 
1892. 

2  See,  Hefele,  Conciliengeschichte,  iv.,  245. 

3  This  was  contrary  to  the  Carthaginian  Canon.      Cf.  Hefele,  op.  cit.,  i.,  p. 

413. 

4  Back  of  these  accusations  was  the  determination  on  Hincmar's  part  to  bring 
his  unruly  suffragan  into  obedience.  He  had  already  sent  him  numerous 
warnings.  But  the  Bishop  of  Soissons  seems  to  have  been  too  fully  imbued 
with  the  spirit  of  the  new  order  of  things  to  obey  his  metropolitan.  Flodoardus 
mentions  a  number  of  warnings  which  Hincmar  had  written  him.  See  op.  cit. 
iii.,  21. 


248  Hincmar. 

of  the  council  would  be  against  him,  and  to  escape  it  he 
appealed  to  Rome.1 

This  appeal  was  not  only  irregular  but  uncanonical.  A 
case  once  before  a  provincial  synod  should  have  been  settled 
by  it,  unless  it  was  removed  from  it  for  cause,  by  mandate 
from  a  superior  tribunal  having  jurisdiction.  A  stay  and 
change  of  venue  was  inadmissible,  and  a  stay  and  appeal 
was  canonically  impossible  at  this  stage  of  the  proceed- 
ings.2 

It  is  true  that  the  Sardican  canons  allowed  an  appeal  to 
Rome  but  not  until  the  bishop  had  been  deposed.  Then, 
and  then  only,  would  an  appeal  lay.  Even  when  an  appeal 
could  be  taken  the  case  was  not  given  to  Rome  without 
important  reservations :  The  Pope  was  not  in  person  to 
hear  the  appellant,  nor  could  the  parties  be  cited  to  Rome. 
The  case  was  to  be  remanded  to  the  Province  from  which  it 
had  come  up.  Then  a  new  court  was  to  assemble  under 
the  presidency  of  papal  legates  and  the  bishop  was  to  be 
tried  de  novo. 

It  was  upon  this  ground  that  Hincmar  combated  the 
appeal.  He  contended  that,  as  the  judicial  affairs  of  the 
church  were  no  longer  under  the  control  of  the  state,  and 
as  the  Emperor  was  no  longer  the  ultimate  judge  of  eccle- 
siastical affairs,  the  Sardican  canons,  as  they  had  never  been 
suspended,  were  in  full  force,  and  that  the  procedure  laid 
down  by  them  was  to  be  followed  in  all  ecclesiastical  cases 
to  which  they  applied. 

Pending  trial  and  judgment  Rothadus  was  deprived  of 
his  episcopal  communion.3  This  action  was  in  harmony 
with  the  canon  of  Carthage.4  Rothadus  seemingly  re- 
garded his  deprivation  lightly.  His  conduct  continued  to 
excite  complaint.5     Hincmar  therefore  decided  to  press  the 

1  Text  of  appeal  apud  Baronius,  ad  an.  863. 

2  It  was  on  this  principle  that  Hincmar  took  his  stand.  His  position  was 
supported  by  strong  precedents;  for  example,  the  case  of  the  Vicariate  of  Aries, 
Cf.  Gieseler,  op.  at.,  i.,  391.     Zosimus,  i.     Ep.  i.  ad.  Eps.  Gallise. 

i  Annal.  Berlin,  ad  an.  861.     Episcopale  privat  communione,  etc. 

4  Can.   10.    Coun.,  Carthage,  a.d.  401.     Cf.  Phillips,  Kirchenrecht,  ii.,  276. 

6  Ann.  Bertin.,  ad  an.  862. 


Hincmar.  249 

case.  A  council  was  summoned  to  Soissons  to  take  action 
in  the  matter  of  the  charges  against  Rothadus. 

In  862  a  council,  upon  the  citation  of  the  King,  was  held 
at  the  Church  of  St.  Methard,  that  of  Rothadus,  at  Soissons. 
Here,  notwithstanding  his  appeal  to  Rome,  Rothadus  was 
tried,  convicted,  deposed,  and  condemned  to  imprisonment 
in  a  monastery.1  The  sentence  was  carried  out  and  an- 
other bishop  ruled  in  the  see  of  Rothadus. 

Nicholas  seized  the  opportunity  given  him  by  the  appeal 
of  Rothadus  to  advance  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome.  He 
ordered  Hincmar  to  restore  Rothadus  to  his  temporal  and 
spiritual  rights,2  to  send  him  to  Rome,  and  also  to  send  a 
legate  to  represent  himself.  In  other  words,  he  ordered  the 
parties  when  placed  in  status  quo  ante  to  appear  at  Rome 
and  retry  the  case. 

Hincmar  seems  to  have  paid  little  attention  to  this  letter.' 
On  the  contrary,  he  wrote  to  Nicholas  asking  his  confirma- 
tion of  the  action  of  the  council  that  had  condemned  Ro- 
thadus. 

Nicholas,  upon  seeing  his  mandate  disregarded,  was 
violently  enraged.  He  repeated  in  no  gentle  terms  his 
order  for  the  reinstatement  of  Rothadus  and  called  on 
Charles  the  Bald  to  help  him.  Neither  Charles  nor  Hincmar 
moved  in  the  matter.4 

Rothadus  was  imprisoned  for  two  years.  His  friends 
were  the  enemies  of  Hincmar,  and  this  common  enmity  ren- 
dered them  steadfast.  By  their  efforts  and  a  turn  in  political 
affairs  Rothadus  was  released  and  obtained  permission  to 
go  to  Rome.  Before  leaving  France  he  sought  to  strengthen 
his  position  there,  and  for  that  purpose  wrote  letters  to  sev- 
eral   friendly  bishops,  members  of  the  Soisson  Council  of 

'  Cf.  Migne,  Die.  des  Concil,  ii. ,  850,  in  Encyl.  Thiol.  ;  Vita  Nic.  I.  Pap. 
Anastasius,  Bouquet,  vii.,  328. 

2  This  demand  conforms  to  Gaii  P.  Ep.  ad.  Felicene,  Mansi,  i.,  1231  ;  Zephy- 
rini,  Ep.  ii.,  Mansi,  i.,  732  ;  Stephani  /.,  Ep.  ii.,  Mansi,  i.,  p.  889. 

3  It  is  an  open  question  whether  or  not  it  reached  him  before  the  council  was 
held  at  Soissons,  862. 

4  Hincmar  went  so  far  as  to  refuse  to  read  the  Pope's  letters  to  the  synod  or  to 
transmit  them  to  the  King. 


250  •  Hincmar. 

862,  entreating  their  good  offices,  and  furnishing  them  with 
what  Rothadus  believed  to  be  the  strong  points  of  his  case. 

Hincmar  was  determined  to  prevent  Rothadus  from  going 
to  Rome.  He  learned  of  the  letters  written  to  the  bishops. 
He  seized  the  messenger  and  secured  the  undelivered  epistles. 
By  a  perversion  of  their  contents  Hincmar  declared  they  were 
not,  as  on  their  face  they  seemed,  and  in  fact  were,  a  plea  for 
aid.  Hincmar,  in  the  most  arbitrary  manner,  pronounced  the 
letters  to  be  a  distinct  withdrawal  of  the  appeal  Rothadus  had 
made  to  Rome,1  and  further  decided  that  they  constituted  a 
selection  by  Rothadus  of  the  bishops  to  whom  they  were 
addressed  as  a  court  of  provincial  bishops  to  try  his  case. 

Arguing  from  this  standpoint  Hincmar  declared  Rothadus 
to  have,  as  Ebbo  had  done,  selected  his  own  judges  and 
that  he  could  not  appeal  from  the  self-selected  tribunal. 

Rothadus  protested  against  this  high-handed  action  of 
Hincmar.  He  denied  the  correctness  of  the  construction 
put  on  his  letters.  He  continued  to  appeal  to  Rome. 
Hincmar  insisted  on  a  trial  before  the  bishops  to  whom 
Rothadus  had  written.  The  opposition  of  Rothadus 
availed  him  little,  for  the  astute  and  wily  metropolitan  won 
over  the  disaffected  bishops  and  gained  control  of  those  to 
whom  the  letters  had  been  addressed. 

The  triumph  of  Hincmar  was  only  a  temporary  one. 
The  opposition  gathered  force  and  again  obtained  permis- 
sion for  Rothadus  to  go  to  Rome  ;  but  he  was  not,  how- 
ever, relieved  from  ecclesiastical  censure  or  restored  to  his 
episcopal  honors  or  to  his  temporalities.  A  committee  of 
the  Provincial  Council  was  nominated  to  accompany  Rotha- 
dus to  Rome.  For  some  cause  not  clearly  explained,  yet 
strongly  hinted  to  be  owing  to  an  understanding  between 
Lothair  and  Nicholas,2  the  deputies  of  the  council  were  de- 
tained at  the  Italian  frontier.3 

Rothadus,  however,  made  his  way  to  Rome ;  and  the 
Pope,  after  a  delay    of   several  months   in  the  absence  of 

'See  opinion  of  Nicholas,  Ep.  xlii. ,  Mansi,  xv.,  639. 

8  A nnal.  Bertin.,  ad  an.  864. 

3  Ibid.,  864  ;  Natalis.  ALxand.,  xii.,  375. 


Hi?icmar.  251 

prosecutors  as  required,  though  uncanonically,  by  him,  on 
Christmas  day  :  declared  the  restoration  of  Rothadus  to  the 
episcopate  and  ordered  his  reinstatement  to  the  honors  and 
temporalities  of  his  former  see. 

In  the  sermon  delivered  when  this  declaration  was  made 
Nicholas  asserted  that,  according  to  the  decretals  of  his  pre- 
decessors, a  bishop  might  not  be  deposed  without  the  consent 
of  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  a  council  could  not  be  called  to 
take  any  such  action  without  papal  authority.2  The  Pope 
was  determined  to  enforce  his  decision.  Arsenius,  Bishop 
of  Orta,  the  papal  legate  resident  at  the  court  of  Charles  the 
Bald,  was  directed  to  execute  the  decree.3  The  prelates  of 
the  province  of  Rheims  were  ordered,  under  penalty  of  ex- 
communication, to  receive  "the  guiltless  and  injured  pre- 
late "  into  their  communion.  They  were  given  the  option, 
however,  of  reviving  the  proceedings  before  the  pontificial 
court.  The  first  step  in  such  case  must  be  the  placing  of 
Rothadus  in  the  same  position  spiritually  and  temporally 
as  he  occupied  before  the  late  proceedings. 

The  case  of  Rothadus  afforded  a  new  point  of  attack 
against  the  power  of  the  metropolitan  sees.  In  862  Nicholas 
had  humbled  the  two  greatest  prelates  of  Germany,  Thiet- 
gard  of  Triers  and  Gunther  of  Cologne,  despite  their  asser- 
tion of  co-equal  rights  with  him,  and  their  declaration  that 
a  Pope  was  no  greater  than  a  bishop.4  The  defeated  and 
degraded  Archbishops  were  made  to  feel  their  position  of 
subordination  to  the  Papacy.     • 

In  862  John,  Archbishop  of  Ravenna,  denied  the  right  of 
the  Pope  to  interfere  with  diocesan  affairs,  and  defied 
Nicholas.  But  John,  though  he  appealed  to  the  Emperor, 
was  forced  to  implore  mercy  of  Nicholas  and  to  place  his 
see  in  full  submission  to  Rome.' 

1  Vita  Pap.  Nic.  I.  Auast.,  Bouquet,  vii.,  328. 

2  Mansi,  xv. ;  Vita  Pap.,  Nic.  I.,  Bouquet,  vii.,  328. 

8  Annal.  Bertin.,  ad  an.  865.  4Anna/.  Bertin.,  ad  an.  862. 

5Anast.,  Vita  Nic,,  cited;  Aquello,  Liber  pontificalis  sive  vitse  pontificum 
Ravennatum,  cum  appendice,  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  T.  106,  431.  Pertz, 
Monumenta  ;    Script,  rer.  Langobard,  6-9,  265. 


252  Hincmar. 

These  cases  were  the  outcome  of  the  definite  policy  by 
which  Nicholas  strove  to  raise  the  power  of  the  Papal  chair 
and  to  weaken  or  crush  all  opposition  to  Roman  supremacy. 

The  defeat  of  the  great  Archbishops  of  Cologne,  Treves, 
and  Ravenna  gave  strength  to  the  papal  position.  It  re- 
moved obstructions,  it  prevented  opposition.  It  gave  the 
advantage  to  the  Pope  in  his  struggle  with  the  greatest 
prelate  of  the  Western  Church,  Hincmar  of  Rheims. 

The  attitude  of  Nicholas  had  been  aggressive  before 
Rothadus  visited  Rome,  but  there  seemed  no  legal  basis  for 
papal  claims.1  With  the  visit  of  Rothadus  a  new  foundation 
is  given  to  the  arguments  of  Nicholas.  This  is  furnished 
by  the  decretals  of  Pseudo-Isidore.  The  first  official  recog- 
nition of  these  decretals  was  given  in  the  sermon3  by  which 
Nicholas  proclaimed  the  restoration  of  Rothadus.  From 
that  time  forward  their  influence  was  paramount  in  the 
policy  of  the  Pope,  and  this  because  they  gave  just  that  legal 
support  which  the  claims  of  the  Petrine  See  had  hitherto 
lacked.  They  supported  the  assertions  of  Nicholas  that  a 
bishop  could  not  be  legally  tried  by  a  provincial  synod,  that 
an  appeal  once  made  to  Rome  could  not  be  withdrawn,  that 
the  affairs  concerning  bishops  were  always  the  causa;  majores, 
and  that  of  these  the  Pope  had  exclusive  jurisdiction. 

Nicholas  based  these  claims  on  the  Pseudo-Isidore.  He 
declared  them  to  rest  on  decretals  of  the  pontiffs  of  the 
Roman  Church.3  These  decretals  were  declared  to  be 
authoritative  and  as  such  must  be  obeyed  by  the  bishops. 
"  Indeed  to  even  doubt  them  was  to  sin." 

The  natural  objection  of  provincial  authorities  to  these 
newly  discovered  and  unauthenticated  decretals  was  foreseen 
by  the  Pope,  and  he  anticipated  it  by  the  statement  that  to 
say  the  decretals  were  unknown,  was  no  proof  of  their  in- 

1  Cf.  the  letters  of  N.  to  Rudolf  of  Bourges  (Mansi,  xv.,  382  and  3S9)  belong- 
ing to  the  year  864.  In  the  latter  he  lays  down  a  principle  destructive  of  all 
rights  of  metropolitans  :  "  primates  enim,  vel  patriarchas,  nihil  privilegii  habere 
prae  ceteris  episcopis,"  etc. 

2  Note  2,  p.  251,  ante. 

3  First  quotation  of  the  Decretals  by  Nicholas  was  in  865.  Nich.  Pap. 
Epis.  ad  universos  episcopus  Gallia,  ad  an.  865.     Mansi,  xv.,  694  et  seq. 


Hincmar.  253 

validity,  for  local  archives  did  not  and  could  not  contain  all 
the  records  of  the  church,  and  the  decretals  had  long  been 
preserved  in  the  Roman  Archives.1  This  was  false  on  its 
face,  but  it  served  its  purpose. 

Having  fortified  his  position,  Nicholas  sought  to  execute 
his  decree  reinstating  Rothadus.  Charles  the  Bald  was  di- 
rected to  make  plenary  restitution  to  Rothadus,  and  this  of 
the  government  as  well  as  the  temporal  patrimony  of  Soissons. 

On  failure  to  do  this,  the  king  and  all  those  who  advised, 
aided,  or  abetted  him  were  threatened  with  "  the  penalty  of 
exclusion  from  the  sacred  mysteries  and  services  of  the 
church  and  expulsion  from  the  communion  of  the  faithful 
as  profane  persons  and  robbers."  2 

The  same  commands  were  given  to  Hincmar,  but  in  terms 
that  were  even  more  insolent  than  used  to  the  king.  Even 
the  justness  of  the  cause  of  Rothadus  would  not  have  justi- 
fied the  arrogance  of  Nicholas.  Stripped  of  epithet  and 
verbiage  the  orders  to  Hincmar  directed  him  to  make  instant 
and  plenary  satisfaction  to  "  the  injured  and  persecuted 
bishop  "  or  to  appear  in  person  at  Rome.  Hesitation  or 
delay  in  adopting  and  following  one  or  the  other  of  these 
courses  was  to  draw  down  on  the  offender  suspension  from 
all  sacerdotal  or  episcopal  functions.  Hincmar  neither  went 
to  Rome,  though  he  wrote  in  defense  of  his  course,  nor  rein- 
stated Rothadus. 

Hincmar  denied  his  power  to  reinstate  Rothadus,  denied 
the  right  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  interfere  in  the  cause,  and 
left  the  responsibility  of  reinstating  Rothadus  to  Nicholas. 

Despite  the  refusal  of  Hincmar  and  the  bishops  of  the 
province  of  Rheims  to  reinstate  and  receive  Rothadus, 
"  the  condemned  malefactor,"  Nicholas  arbitrarily  did  so, 
and  thus  without  canonical  acquittal  or  condonation.3 

1  Mansi,  xv. ,  695  :  "  decretales  epistolce  Romannrum  pontificum  sunt  recipi- 
endse  etiamsi  non  sunt  canonum  codici  compaginatae." 

2  Ep.  Nich.  I.  Pap.  ad.  Car.,  Bouquet,  vii.,  405. 

3  S.  C.  Vita  Nick.  I.  Pap.,  Bouquet,  vii.,  328.  Of  this  act  Hincmar  said  : 
"  Thus  was  a  criminal  solemnly  deposed  by  the  unanimous  judgment  of  five 
provinces  of  this  realm,  reinstated  by  the  Pope,  not  by  ordinary  canonical  rule, 
but  by  an  extraordinary  act  of  power,  in  a  summary  way,  without  inquiry,  and 
against  the  consent  of  his  natural  judges." 


254  Hincmar. 

The  results  of  the  Rothadus  affair  were,  in  the  main,  two : 
first,  that  every  case  involving  a  bishop  was  a  major  case, 
and  as  such  was  to  be  referred  to  Rome ;  and  secondly,  that 
a  new  kind  of  appeal  "  evocatio  "  was  allowed.  As  to  the 
former,  its  connection  with  the  hierarchical  tendency  of  the 
Church  was  reason  enough  to  expect  such  a  change  sooner 
or  later.  As  to  the  latter,  a  new  legal  code  could  alone 
establish  it.  The  Pseudo-Isidore  provides  for  it  in  several 
passages,  the  clearest  being,  no  doubt,  that  in  the  epistle 
attributed  to  Felix  II.1 

The  case  of  Wulfadus  and  the  other  clerks  ordained  by 
Ebbo  after  his  deposition  had  for  some  years  seemed  settled, 
but  it  was  now  to  be  reopened.  Nicholas  saw  the  effect  of 
a  decision  favorable  to  the  clerks  upon  the  position  of  his 
opponent  Hincmar.  He  could  not  fail  to  see  the  applica- 
bility of  the  Pseudo-Isidore  to  the  case  of  Ebbo,  and  the 
power  these  decretals  placed  in  his  hands.2 

Nicholas  wished  to  reopen  the  case  of  Wulfadus  because 
he  believed  himself  able  to  obtain  a  judgment  favorable  to 
those  ordained  by  Ebbo.  Such  a  decision  would  be  a  virtual 
acknowledgment  by  the  Gallican  Church  of  the  Pseudo- 
Isidore,  for  the  case  of  the  clerks  rested  upon  its  principles, 
and  would  also  be  a  denial  of  the  right  of  Hincmar  to  the 
metropolitanate  of  Rheims.s 

Nicholas  ordered  Hincmar  either  to  restore  the  clerks  or 
to  open  their  case  de  novo  at  a  synod.     This  command  placed 

1  Ep.  i.,  Canon  16  :  "  Nam  in  ssecularibus  legibus,  post  quam  vocatus  quis 
venerit  et  in  foro  decertare  coeperit,  non  licet  ei  ante  peractam  causam  recedere, 
in  ecclesiasticis  vero  dicta  causa  recedere  licet,  si  necesse  fuerit  aut  si  se  prae- 
gravari  viderit.  ...  si  quis  autem  judicem  adversum  sibi  senserit,  vocem 
appellationis  exbibeat,  quam  nulli  oportet  negari." 

2  This  applicability  of  the  decretals  of  Pseudo-Isidore  to  the  case  of  Ebbo  has 
given  rise  to  a  strongly  sustained  hypothesis  that  Ebbo  was  the  sole  or  principal 
collector  and  fabricator  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore,  at  least  in  so  far  as  they  concern 
the  trials  of  bishops.      Cf.  V.  Noorden,  Hinkmar,  p.  25  et  seq. 

3  It  should  be  noted  that  the  claims  of  Nicholas  and  his  attempt  to  reopen 
the  case  of  Ebbo  was  unsupported  by  precedent.  The  current  of  law  from 
Sardica  down  had  given  competent  jurisdiction  to  local  synods.  Unless  the 
decree  of  the  synod  was  appealed  from  (and  this  was  not  the  case  here),  it  stood 
valid  against  the  world.     Cf.  Greenwood,  op.  cit.y  iii.,  272. 


Hincmar.  255 

Hincmar  in  a  trilemma.  He  dreaded  the  synod,  for  he 
fathomed  the  Pope's  designs  against  him.  On  the  other 
hand  he  could  not  restore  the  clerks,  for  such  an  act  would 
be  an  acknowledgment  that  Ebbo's  deposition  was  illegal  or 
his  restoration  legal,  and  this  would  cloud  Hincmar's  own 
episcopal  title.  Should  he  decline  to  restore  the  clerks  or 
to  reopen  the  case  before  a  council  at  the  order  of  the  Pope, 
he  would  come  in  direct  conflict  with  the  papal  authority  as 
defined  by  Pseudo-Isidore.  Hincmar  was  unable  to  expose 
the  flaws  in  the  new  decretals.  He  was  in  no  position  to 
defy  them.1  As  the  least  of  the  three  evils  the  synod  was 
chosen.2  Here  the  ability  to  manage  men,  that  distinguished 
this  greatest  of  the  politicians  of  the  Gallican  Church,  might 
help  his  cause.     It  did.     Hincmar  convinced  the  council : 

I.  That  he  could  not  canonically  restore  the  clerks,  for  a 
council,  and  not  he,  had  deposed  them,  and  further,  as  two 
Popes  had  confirmed  the  proceedings  of  the  council  that  did 
so,  the  matter  was  no  longer  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Metropolitan  of  Rheims. 

II.  That  the  council  had  not  met  to  consider  the  deposi- 
tion of  Ebbo,  as  some  pretended,  but  the  case  of  Wulfadus. 

Though  in  this  Hincmar  was  technically  correct,  yet  the 
deposition  of  Ebbo  was  the  real  point  in  controversy,  not 
only  because  Nicholas  wished  it  to  be  so,  but  because  the 
case  of  Wulfadus  was  dependent  upon  the  validity  of 
Ebbo's  title  to  the  archbishopric  at  the  time  the  clerks  were 
ordained.  By  accepting  Hincmar's  opinion  the  council  es- 
caped the  discussion  of  the  unpleasant  claims  of  the  Pseudo- 
Isidore. 

III.  That  there  was  no  legal  ground  upon  which  he  or 
the  council  could  restore  the  clerks,  but  as  the  Pope  was  so 

1  The  epistle  of  Leo  to  the  bishops  of  Campania  (Ep.  v.)  provided  for  the 
reception  of  all  previous  epistles  and  decretals  :  "  omnia  decretalia  constituta, 
tam  beatse  recordationis  Innocentii  quam  omnium  decessorum  nostrorum  quae 
de  ecclesiasticis  ordinibus  et  canonum  promulgata  sunt  disciplinis,  ita  vestram 
dilectionem  custodire  debere  mandamus."  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  decretal  of 
Gelasisus,  de  libris  recipiendis,  not  included  in  the  current  legal  code,  was  re- 
ceived.    Cf.  Credner,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Kanons,  151  ff. 

2  Mansi,  xv.,  712. 


256  Hincmar. 

much  interested  in  Wulfadus  that  he  should  restore  him  of 
his  own  authority,  after  the  example  of  the  Militian  schism 
in  Egypt  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council,  provided  that 
it  was  not  done  to  the  disadvantage  of  any  member  of  the 
synod.1 

The  decisions  of  the  synod  did  not  please  Nicholas.  He 
was  unable,  however,  to  attack  them  on  legal  grounds,  and 
so  he  endeavored  to  carry  his  point  by  questioning  the  legal 
competency  of  the  council  in  which  the  clerks  had  been 
originally  deposed.  He  alleged  that  council  to  be  ab  initio 
illegal  because  no  papal  legates  were  present ;  that  even  if 
it  were  legal,  that  its  decrees  had  never  been  legally  con- 
firmed. He  accused  Hincmar  of  fraudulently  securing  such 
papal  confirmation  as  had  been  given,  and  therefore  the  con- 
firmation was  of  no  effect.2 

Nicholas  allowed  Hincmar  one  year  in  which  to  prove  the 
legality  of  the  council  and  of  its  action  in  the  case  of  Wul- 
fadus and  the  other  clerks.  He  ordered,  as  in  the  case  of 
Rothadus,  that  pendente  lite  the  clerks  should  be  restored 
to  their  places.3 

Nicholas  resented  the  insinuation  of  the  council  that  the 
Pope  might,  as  a  matter  of  favor,  restore  the  clerks.  The 
right  of  restoration  was,  he  said,  a  right  which  belonged  to 
the  Roman  See,  and  was  not  dependent  upon  the  resolu- 
tions of  councils.  Then  he  declared  that  the  contumacy  of 
the  Gallican  church,  and  more  particularly  Hincmar  and  his 
supporters  in  opposing  the  papal  claims,  meant  that  neither 
Ebbo,  Wulfadus,  nor  the  clerks  had  been  lawfully  deposed.4 

Hincmar  replied  to  Nicholas  in  a  long  and  carefully  writ- 
ten epistle.  He  met  the  allegations  of  the  discomfited 
pontiff  by  citations  from  the  known  and  accepted  Hadriano- 

1  A tinal.  Berlin.,  ad  an.  S66. 

5  See  p.  245,  supra. 

8  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Rothadus,  and  of  Hincmar  of  Laon,  was  a  direct 
reference  to  the  exceptio  spolii  of  Pseudo-Isidore.  The  following  sentence  used 
by  Nicholas  is  quoted  from  the  Pseudo-Damasius :  "  Non  enim  enermis  cum 
annato  vite  conflictum  mire  potuit."  The  demand  that  the  clerks  should  be 
reinstated  before  any  action  began  is  based  upon  Ep.  Zephr.  in  Pseudo-Isidore. 

4  Mansi,  xv.,  738. 


Hincmar.  257 

Dionysian  Code.  He  argued  that  the  quotations  from  the 
Pseudo-Alexander,  used  by  the  Pope,  did  not  apply  to  the 
case,  as  the  confession  of  Ebbo  had  not  been  extorted  by 
force,  fraud,  or  fear.1 

Nicholas  was  determined  to  crush  Hincmar.  Though  the 
Council  of  Soissons  (866)  had  been  called  by  the  Pope,  its 
findings,  not  being  satisfactory  to  him,  were  rejected.  The 
papal  party  put  forward  its  utmost  efforts  during  the  year 
following;  it  strove  to  win  the  Gallican  prelates,  and  to 
strengthen  and  organize  the  opposition  to  Hincmar.  As 
the  organization  progressed  the  Pope  was  fully  advised,  and 
when  all  seemed  ready  for  the  attack  on  Hincmar,  he  ordered 
a  council  to  be  held  at  Troyes  in  the  autumn  of  867.* 

At  this  council  the  papal  party  was  in  the  majority.  It 
was  bent  upon  advancing  the  status  of  the  suffragan  bishops 
and  diminishing  the  power  of  metropolitans.  The  case  of 
Ebbo  was  reopened.  Rothadus,  formerly  the  defender  of 
the  legality  of  the  proceedings  against  Ebbo,  and  a  principal 
witness  against  the  clerks,  was  now  the  determined  enemy 
of  Hincmar,  and  stultified  himself  by  reversing  his  former 
statement  of  fact  in  Ebbo's  case.  The  suffragan  bishops, 
bent  on  freeing  themselves  from  the  control  of  their  metro- 
politans, appealed  to  the  Pope  to  see  to  it  that  no  bishop 
should  be  deposed  without  the  consent  of  the  Roman 
See. 

Here  was  the  most  determined  attack  that  had  confronted 
Hincmar.  It  was  not  an  invasion  but  a  rebellion.  It  was 
an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  metropolitan  constitution  as  it 
had  been  established  by  Boniface  and  received  for  two  centu- 
ries by  the  church. 

The  astute  Metropolitan  faced  the  tumult.  He  turned 
defeat  into  victory.  By  conceding  to  his  enemies  that 
which,  if    the  Pseudo-Isidore   was    accepted,  no  longer  be- 

1  Ep.  Alex.:  "Similiter,  si  hujusmodo  personis  queddam  scriptoras  quoque 
modo  per  metum,  aut  fraudeno,  aut  vem  extortse  fuerunt."  The  answer  of 
Hincmar  is  not  a  full  acceptation  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore.  It  may,  however,  be 
construed  as  admitting  its  authenticity. 

2  Antral.  Bertin.,  ad  an.  867. 

17 


258  Hincmar. 

longed  to  his  person  or  office,  he  placated  them.  By  a  wise 
concession  that  cost  him  nothing,  and  by  a  fictitious  display  of 
reserve  power,  he  induced  the  council  to  agree  with  him  on 
the  question  of  Ebbo's  deposition  and  the  case  of  the  clerks.1 

The  findings  of  the  council  of  866  had  been  unsatisfac- 
tory to  Nicholas;  those  of  the  session  of  867  were  at  vari- 
ance with  the  views  of  Charles  the  Bald.  He  intercepted 
the  messenger  bearing  the  synodical  letter  to  the  Pope. 
The  six  archbishops  present  at  Troyes  had  secured  the 
missive  with  their  seals.  Charles  broke  these  and  read 
the  letter.  He  wrote  a  refutation  of  the  conclusions  of  the 
synod,  excepting  those  bearing  upon  the  rights  of  suffragan 
bishops,  and  then  sent  his  letter  with  that  of  the  synod  to 
Rome.3 

While  the  anti-metropolitan  party  had  been  gathering 
strength  in  France  its  final  victory  was  to  be  deferred  by 
defeat  ;  for  the  Roman  See  was  involved  in  controversies 
with  the  Greek  Church  that  for  the  moment  claimed  the  un- 
divided attention  of  Nicholas.  He  now  needed  the  support 
of  those  primates  whose  power  he  had  been  determined  to 
lower.     Hincmar  was  necessary  to  the  defense  of  Rome.3 

Even  before  the  council  convened  at  Troyes,  Nicholas  had 
written 4  to  Hincmar  requesting  him  to  bring  the  other 
French  bishops  to  the  aid  of  the  Petrine  See  in  its  struggles 
with  the  Greeks.  In  another  letter  Nicholas  approved  the 
course  of  Hincmar  in  the  case  of  Wulfadus. 

Unconscious  of  this  turn  in  affairs,  the  messenger  of  the 
synod  bearing  his  double  burden,  on  which  the  hopes  of 
Hincmar's  antagonists  rested,  passed  the  papal  courier  hurry- 
ing northward,  and  hastened  on  to  Rome.  When  he  arrived 
Nicholas  was  dead.6 

1  Annal.  Berlin.,  ad  an.  867. 

*  Annal.  Berlin.,  ad  an.  867. 

8  Hincmar  had  also  outflanked  his  adversaries,  for  six  months  before  the  synod 
of  Troyes  he  had  sent  agents  to  the  Pope.  These  in  the  disguise  of  pilgrims 
had  evaded  the  enemies  that  beset  them  and  reached  Rome.  They  had  gained 
the  Pope's  ear,  and  the  letters  mentioned  must,  at  least  in  part,  be  ascribed  to 
their  influence.     Cf.  Annal.  Berlin.,  ad  an.  867. 

1  Mansi,  xv.,  355. 

5  Nicholas  died  less  than  three  weeks  after  the  council  of  Troyes. 


Hincmar.  259 

Adrian  II.,1  who  succeeded  Nicholas,  approved  the  decrees 
of  Troyes  (February,  868).  He  attempted  to  carry  out  the 
policy  of  Nicholas,  but  he  lacked  the  far-seeing  mind,  the 
iron  will,  and  the  consummate  ability  of  his  great  prede- 
cessor. The  suffragan  bishops  aided  him  to  the  extent  of 
their  ability,  but  their  combined  efforts  did  not  suffice  to 
advance  the  papal  prerogative  beyond  the  status  to  which 
Nicholas  had  brought  it. 

The  Bonifacian  system  was,  however,  doomed.  The  new 
decretals  gained  ground.  They  seemed  suited  to  the  needs 
of  the  times.  They  were  in  fact  an  expression  of  those 
needs.  It  therefore  was  of  little  consequence  if  the  Pope 
was  unsuccessful  in  individual  controversies,  for  the  forward 
movement  of  the  Roman  supremacy  was  to  be  certain  and 
continued. 

The  change  in  the  ecclesiastical  world  was  accompanied 
by  convulsions  in  the  secular  world.  The  disintegration  of 
the  Empire  and  the  destruction  of  its  institutions  was  still 
progressing.  The  old  bases  of  nationality  were  no  longer 
stable.  Their  shifting  and  interchanging  disturbed  the  ex- 
istent half-built  superstructures  which  they  supported.  The 
power  of  the  metropolitans  was  no  longer  firmly  grounded 
upon  nationality.  It  lost  the  support  that  had  sustained  it 
in  the  conflicts  with  the  Papacy. 

We  may  illustrate  the  effect  of  Pseudo-Isidore  upon  the 
church  organization  by  one  case,  that  of  Hincmar  of  Laon,a 
which  seemed  to  combine  most  of  the  points  in  dispute.8 
The  points  advanced  by  the  Bishop  of  Laon  were,  in  the 
main,  based  upon  the  Pseudo-Isidore.     They  were  briefly  : 

(1.)  Unlimited  right  of  appeal  to  Rome  on  the  part  of  the 
suffragan  bishops. 

(2.)  Opposition  to  every  privilege  pertaining  to  metropoli- 

1  Adrian  II.,  Pope. — Epistol&ap.,  Bouquet,  Rec.  Hist.,  Gaules,  v.  7.  Epistoltz 
et  decreta,  Migne,  Patrol.  S.  Lat.,  122  pp.  129-1015.  Notitia  Historica  in 
Adrianum,  II,  Migne,  Ibid. 

*  Migne,  Patrol. ,  T.  126  ;  Hincmari,  opuscula  et  epistolce  qua;  spectant,  causam 
Hincmari  Laudunensis,  Ibid.,  T.  124.  Epistola  Hincmari  Laudunensis  ad 
Hincmarum  Rhememsem  ;  Annal.  Bertin.,  ad  an.  868. 

3  I  will  not  here  go  into  a  study  of  its  detail,  reserving  that  for  later  publication. 


260  Hincmar. 

tans  as  superior  to  their  suffragans,  excepting  such  metro- 
politans who  were  at  the  same  time  patriarchs.' 

(3.)  Protest  against  the  interference  by  metropolitans  in 
the  management  of  their  dioceses  by  suffragans. 

(4.)  The  restitution  of  an  accused  bishop  to  office  and 
goods  before  he  could  be  summoned  before  an  ecclesiastical 
court. 

(5.)  The  illegality  of  every  synod  not  summoned  by  the 
Roman  See,  or  at  which  papal  legates  were  not  present. 

(6.)  The  permission  to  restore  a  condemned  bishop  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  a  full  synod. 

(7.)  Accusations  of  a  bishop  to  be  made  more  difficult. 

(8.)  Unconditional  acceptance  without  distinction  of  all 
decretals  as  law." 

Hincmar  of  Rheims  presented  an  elaborate  refutation  of 
Laon's  claims.  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  our  en- 
quiry that  we  should  note  the  authorities  to  which  Hincmar 
appealed.  It  is  by  the  very  Pseudo-Isidore  on  which  Laon 
had  so  confidently  depended  that  Hincmar  refutes  him. 

Hincmar  used  Pseudo-Isidore  to  support  his  arguments  be- 
cause he  was  unable  to  reject  that  body  of  decretals.  He 
was  obliged  to  accept  the  new  law. 

That  Laon  was  condemned,  and  Adrian  compelled  to 
acknowledge  the  legality  of  the  deposition  that  followed  is 
of  comparatively  small  importance  in  our  study.  The  main 
point  is  that  Laon's  case  proved  the  general  acceptance  of 
the  Pseudo-Isidore  by  the  Gallican  church.  It  had  been  ac- 
cepted, and  that  too  in  its  entirety,  by  the  metropolitans 
against  whom  it  made  the  strongest.  By  this  acceptance  a 
new  constitution  was  given  to  the  church,  for  whatever  rights 
were  seemingly  reserved  to  metropolitans  their  real  power 
was  taken  from  them.  With  the  acceptance  of  the  new 
decretals  a  new  era  began.  The  only  metropolitan  in  the 
true  sense,  the  old  sense,  of  the  term  was.  henceforth,  by  the 
accepted  law  of  the  Western  Church,  to  be  the  Pope. 

1  This  preserved  the  rights  of  Rome  and  overthrew  those  of  Rheims. 
8  Cf.  Von  Noorden,  Hinkmar,  p.  268. 


VITA. 

Guy  Carleton  Lee  was  born  in  1866  of  North  Carolinian 
parentage.  He  was  educated  at  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia,  and 
St.  Johns,  New  Brunswick.  In  1894  he  received  the  degree 
of  LL.B.  from  the  University  of  North  Carolina.  In  1895 
he  received  the  degree  of  A.B.  from  Dickinson  College  and 
the  degree  of  LL.M.  from  Dickinson  School  of  Law.  All 
with  the  highest  honors. 

In  October,  1895,  he  entered  upon  a  three  years'  course  of 
graduate  study  in  Johns  Hopkins  University,  taking  History 
as  his  principal  subject,  Jurisprudence  and  Politics  as  first 
and  second  subordinate,  respectively. 


> 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY — TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


— ft 


— ~ 


t<ma  » 


066iT^ 


4HV*** 


ff&'p  ft 


JUL 


=r^ 





19 


LATIOM 


LD21A-60m-3,'70 

N.r.:ifLV10)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


u.c. 


ttRKELE 


c00b 


Ylibrah, 


IBS 


1-1533 


